Talk:Close back rounded vowel

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Phonetics Task Force.

Would anyone mind if we removed the English sample? The english /u/ is extremely advanced and deviates very much from those in other languages. As a comparison it's not terribly representative and potentially confusing, while the other examples are very close to one another. I would hate to give people the impression that [u] in other languages are all pronounced like it is in English.

At the very least it should have a proper comment.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would mind, do not remove English from this article until you have talked to linguists such as Angr, Nohat, etc, who know how /uː/ is used in English. RP and GA insist on using /uː/ for their pronunciations and transcriptions. – AxSkov (T) 12:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly familiar with both usage and pronunciation in English. That why I'm asking for removal or clarification. That /u/ is used to describe the phoneme in English really not that relevant to the finer auditive aspects of the sound. This is very similar to the Swedish /ʉ/ (as in "ful" or "ut"), which in most dialects is very advance (see Swedish language#Vowels for a more precise vowel chart) and just like the English /u/ is quite different from the "neutral" position of the cardinal vowel.

But I guess making a stir about this isn't really necessary; I'll just add the comment myself.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why the transcriptions for the approximant [β̞] were added, but I'm unsure if they are really helpful to the average reader if the text says that there's no way to transcribe inrounded vowels. It doesn't seem all that necessary to get really narrow about transcribing sounds that aren't really relevant to the article at hand.

And to the anonymous editor, please stop just making stubborn reverts. There is absolutely no need for the special IPA length-sign. It makes for strange-looking text for me on my iBook, and that means others will experience it as well. A colon is fully acceptable and can't be confused with any other symbol. The actual lengthmark is only needed when having to use the half-length mark as well as the full-lrngth mark when making very narrow transcriptions and with languages that actually have over-long vowels, like Estonian (but these languages are quite rare).

Peter ^Isotalo 14:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian

Is the Norwegian /u/ compressed like the Swedish? kwami (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. - Some random Swede living in Norway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.68.78 (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in Japanese

I've always been rather confounded by the use of [u] to represent う, and even more so when I see i used alongside the Swedish example "oro". To my ears at least, the don't sound the least bit similiar, if you listen to the sound files provided on the page, then I'm pretty sure you'll find that the Japanese U and its Swedish counterpart won't sound the least bit alike.

I second that. Whatever other subtle processes are going on here, the vowel of oro is closer to that of standard English pooh while the u of kuki is closer to English duh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:E0B5:8DBE:8D7B:53C2 (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First time I heard Japanese and tried to pronouce names such as "Mutsumi" och "Kyushu", I found that what I pronounced ([u]) didn't sound at all like what the Japanese themselves used to say in animae, which sounded a lot more like [y]. I found it had a lot more similarities to a Hungarian and German Ü (representing [y]) than it had to a Hungarian U or a Swedish O, which represent the vowel [u].

I can't come up with any facts or sources to prove or back up my claim, but I'd still like someone to look into it, preferably somebody who speaks more that just English and Japanese. Nederbörd (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No-where do we say it's the same vowel as Hungarian /u/. I can't speak for Swedish. It's a diphthong though, unlike Japanese. Listening to the sound file, it also sounds quite a bit lower--almost like an English /ou/. You're right, it doesn't sound much like Japanese. But "u" is as good as you're going to get for Japanese using the IPA, unless they introduce more vowel letters. Japanese /u/ is further forward than cardinal, in addition to being compressed. I'd think it's the Swedish we'd need to change. However, it may just be that our speaker doesn't have the accent transcribed in the IPA. kwami (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian

I don't understand why someone is constantly changing the final trill ([r]) in the example in the Armenian line. It IS a trill, not a flap/tap. See the Wiktionary example for more.--Mahtrqerin (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I've taken a quick look at the source, and it too seems to say it is a trill (ṙ). --JorisvS (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I misread the source on page 19-20, mistakenly thinking it said that the trill never occurs word-finally. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roundedness

There is a difference in the roundedness of "u" in some different languages. The pronounciation of "u" in Standard French is much more rounded (the lips get much more rounded) that the pronounciation of "u" in the Turkish, Bengali, Hebrew and Spanish standards. They are definitely two different sounds (though hard to percieve for many, it would be quite easy to a musician's ear). I don't know if there is another sign to distinguish them, but it should definitely be mentioned somewhere. Thank you. --Universal Life (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a continuum of roundedness. The IPA has diacritics for "more rounded" and "less rounded". --JorisvS (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you Joris, I saw the signs for "more rounded" and "less rounded".

But then how will we know, how much rounded is the standard sign for close back rounded vowel (u)? --Universal Life (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that will depend somewhat on who you're asking. I'd go for a moderately rounded one, so that you can meaningfully apply either diacritic to it. --JorisvS (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So, from what I know, the "u" in Bengali, Hebrew, Latin, Spanish and Turkish is a moderately rounded one. But in French, for example, when I need to say doucement, for making the "ou", my lips go extremely forward (like a monkey's lip, making u-u-u). So I think the French "u" can be called "more rounded". In the aforementioned languages no one does that. When someone speaks Hebrew or Turkish with such a rounded "u" (like in French), people will think; oh! s/he French. Thanks --Universal Life (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Close back rounded vowel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]